Is there a Relationship between all Types of Strategies in Paraphrasing in Academic Writing?

Is there a Relationship between all Types of Strategies in Paraphrasing in Academic Writing?

Noor Hanim Rahmat

Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300077

Received: 22 February 2025; Revised: 04 March 2025; Accepted: 05 March 2025; Published: 01 April 2025

ABSTRACT

Many see academic writing as tedious because it involves more than just writing skills.  Although it is true that academic writing is a taught course for students in higher institutions of learning, the switch from narrative or reading-for-pleasure type of writing to academic writing is not an easy task. One academic writing skill many find exhausting is paraphrasing. Is paraphrasing a writing or reading task? I think by definition of the processes involved, paraphrasing involves both reading and writing; perhaps even read-to-write. The use of paraphrasing strategies has been taught as part of academic writing skills. Paraphrasing strategies include syntactic, semantic and organization paraphrasing are generally taught to academic writers. This study is done to explore perception of learners on their use of paraphrasing strategies. This quantitative study is done to investigate learners use of paraphrasing strategies in academic writing. A purposive sample of 30 participants who attended an academic writing course and were taught the three types of paraphrasing strategies mainly syntactic, semantic and organization paraphrasing strategies. The instrument used is a 5 Likert-scale survey. The scales (table 1) used are never, rarely, sometimes, very often and always. The survey has 4 sections. Section A has items on demographic profile. Section B has 9 items on syntactic paraphrase. Section C has 4 items on semantic paraphrase and section D has 14 items on organization paraphrase. This study revealed interesting writers’ perception on the use of paraphrasing strategies. Respondents reported some strategies were used more often than others. Results of this study bear interesting implication on how teachers could better teach paraphrasing strategies to improve academic writers read-to-write techniques.

Keywords : academic writing, paraphrasing, strategies, syntactic, semantic, organization

INTRODUCTION

Is paraphrasing a writing or reading task? I think by definition of the processes involved, paraphrasing involves both reading and writing; perhaps even read-to-write. It is not just writing because a writer needs to read before deciding what to write. It is not just reading because the reader needs to complete the task by writing. As confusing and as interesting as it sounds, this is the reason for this paper. The confusion about this read-to-write process has inspired me to embark on this investigation.

Many see academic writing as tedious because it involves more than just writing skills.  Although it is true that academic writing is a taught course for students in higher institutions of learning, the switch from narrative or reading-for-pleasure type of writing to academic writing is not an easy task. An added assumed skill in academic writing is reading. Writers need to make decisions to get the proper text to elaborate and justify what they said. This is process of transferring information from the source text to the essay requires reading skills. The studies by Regala-Flores & Lopez (2019), Clarin,et.al. (2023), Sulistyaningrum (2021) had indeed shown that academic writers’ biggest challenge is their poor reading skills.

Figure 1- The Knowledge Transforming Process

(Source: Bereiter & Scardamalia (1987)

With reference to figure 1 above, Bereiter & Scardamalia mentioned that skilled writers go through writing process known as the knowledge-transforming process. The figure shows that academic writer involves the writer having both content and discourse knowledge. However, using this two knowledge requires the writer to go through problem translation. During problem translation, the writer reads materials to be included to support the writing. This stage is considered “problem translation” because the writer reads the information, make sense of the content, makes a decision as to whether the information can be used to support the academic writing. Writers need to read the information; however, in order to use the information to support the his/her writing. The writer needs to paraphrase so as not to commit plagiarism. According to Rahmat,et.al (2020), the process of paraphrasing lets writes focus more on content than technical skills, need to have critical thinking skills to paraphrase. How can writing teachers facilitate this stage? The use of paraphrasing strategies has been taught as part of academic writing skills. Paraphrasing strategies include syntactic, semantic and organization paraphrasing are generally taught to academic writers. This study is done to explore perception of learners on their use of paraphrasing strategies. Specifically, this study is done to answer the following questions;

• How do learners use syntactic paraphrase in academic writing?
• How do learners use semantic paraphrase in academic writing?
• How do learners use organization paraphrase in academic writing?
• Is there a relationship between all types of paraphrases in academic writing?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Framework

The study is rooted on the theories on (a) read-to-write theory and (b) Paraphrasing Strategies.

Read-to-Write Theory

During the process of grounding a theory on paraphrasing, I began searching writing theories and realize that the bulk of paraphrasing is writing. The uniqueness of this writing process for paraphrasing is that the focus is to end with a text different from the original but carries the same meaning. However, although the act of paraphrasing although may be seen as a writing skill, actually develops from critical reading. Figure 2 depicts the process of reading in preparation to writing.

Figure 2 may help researchers understand the complexity of the paraphrasing process. The process begins with Problem Analysis. This can be seen from two angles. One angle sees the problem as the writer analysing the needs of the writing assignment. The second angle sees the problem when writer reads the chosen article to be used to elaborate his/her ideas. The writing needs to make decisions such as (a) is this a suitable article to support my academic essay? It can also be (b) which part of this article can be used to support what I want to elaborate in my essay? The next stage in the read-to-write process is Solving Content Knowledge. This is the stage where the writer begins extracting the content/ideas from the source text to be used in the target essay. Having found the content requires a good writer to go to the next stage -Solving Discourse Knowledge to avoid plagiarism. This stage requires the writer to use paraphrasing strategies. The last stage is Problem Translation where the writer produces his /her own version (translate) of the ideas/content from the source text to the target text (academic essay).

Figure 2- Read-to-Write (Source: Rahmat,2020)

Paraphrasing Strategies

With the advance technology, many resort to paraphrasing tools to solve their read-to-write problems. For many, the tools can help them in their day-to-day writing. For some, with or without tools, they would prefer understanding paraphrasing strategies first before relying on technology completely. One may think the act of paraphrasing as a simple straight-forward process. Begin with reading the source text, then make the decision which of the content needs to be included in the target text (the essay) and finally, transfer the information (write). More often than not, writers chose a source text that they did not understand and this may push them to copy word-for-word from the source text. There are numerous ways to paraphrase.

There are several types of paraphrasing. The most basic one is rewriting where writers restructure the original (source text) without changing the meaning. Secondly, is expanding and clarifying where the writer adds information to help readers understand the main ideas of the source text. Next, some writers choose to condense and focus the original text for easier understanding. Some writer adapts the tone of the source text so that the meaning remains the same with the source text. In addition to that, some writer substitute word to different forms. Some academic writers structure the sentence by changing the word order or use different word form. This is also known as syntactic paraphrase (Colin and Gardent, 2018). Some writers combine idea from the source text to the target text (the writer’s work).

Past Studies

Challenges for Paraphrasing

Firstly, Clarin,et.al. (2023) conducted a study to explore challenges for paraphrasing. Participants were chosen from purposive sample of 14 third year English major students in a higher institution in Ozamir City. Data was collected from semi-structure interview. Findings revealed several emerging themes. The themes are lack of vocabulary skills, inaccuracy of paraphrasing tools, poor reading comprehension skills as well as copying someone’s work.

Next, Sulistyaningrum (2021) carried out a descriptive qualitative study to explore students’ difficulties with paraphrasing and their use of online paraphrasing tools. 30 students were chosen for this study. Data was analysed both qualitative and quantitatively. The students reported that paraphrasing is difficult because of the content, structure, and language. In addition to that some difficult paraphrasing strategies are correcting grammar, using appropriate vocabulary and recognizing redundant words. Findings showed that 83% chose rewriting the source text as a paraphrasing tool. The study also found that although students were taught paraphrasing tools, they still have difficulties comprehending the original texts.

Azis,et.al.(2019) conducted a descriptive research on 5^th semester students of English Education Study towards  their use of paraphrasing strategies. Data is collected from documentation, questionnaire and interview. Findings showed that students face difficulties to write paraphrasing text and summarizing text. Students face difficulties because they lacked vocabulary and knowledge on the content of the text. The students also were reported to not have the basic knowledge of paraphrasing and summarizing text.

The study by Regala-Flores & Lopez (2019) examined the cognitive and metacogntiitve aspects of paraphrasing and summarizing. Data was collected from 120 freshman from a private university in Manila. Findings revealed four major areas of concern and they are (1) lack of proficiency in English, (2) , poor reading comprehension skills, (3) lack of vocabulary skills and (4) lack of poor documentation skills.

Hayuningrum & Yulia  (2012) look at  students’ problems in paraphrasing. They also looked at why the students produced unacceptable paraphrases. Data was collected from students’ writings. The students were from an English language education study programee (ELESP) at Sananta Dharma University. Data anaysed were from documents analysis and interview. The findings showed that the most frequent unacceptable paraphrase was word-for-word plagiarism.

To sum up, among some common challenges to writing well are (a) using the wrong paraphrasing tools, weak language, documentation as well as reading skills.

Past Studies on Paraphrasing Strategies

Firstly, Tran & Nguyen (2022) conducted a quasi-experimental mixed-methods study to look into the effects of paraphrasing on English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ academic writing performance. Data was collected from pre and posttests. 143 students were chosen for this study. They were students majoring in English at a Vietnamese university. Findings revealed that the use of paraphrasing strategies had positive effects on students’ academic writing performance. Specifically, the experimental group showed improvements in paraphrasing in all the six aspects of academic writing (task fulfillment, structure, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation and capitalization, and citation).

Next, the study by Shi,et.al (2018) examined paraphrasing strategies used by 192 graduate students across discipline in an American university. Data is collected from students’ writing. Data is also obtained from students’ own accounts and their thoughts on how they completed their paraphrasing tasks. Findings revealed interesting paraphrasing strategies. They integrate information form the source text onto their new text by syntactically restructuring. They also made their own interpretation of the source text. Sometimes the writer reported that they incorporated information in the source text and also from their previous reading.

Na & Mai (2017) explored paraphrasing ability of EFL learners. The participants in the study are tertiary institution (second year English major students) in Vietnam. This study investigated the challenges students face during paraphrasing. Data was collected from the participants through (i) text given to the and (ii) individual interviews. Findings revealed that the students frequently paraphrased using synonym. They rarely changed syntactic structures of the source text. Findings from the interview revealed that the participants face difficulties in language-related difficulties. They reported that they had inadequate understanding of the source text.

Ovilla,et.al, (2022) conducted a study to investigate the most frequent paraphrasing techniques used by students. The study also looked at challenges that learners face during the paraphrasing process. 30 students participated in this study. Data was taken from the students’ text in which students had to complete. The findings showed that the most used strategies are change to synonym, change to active to passive” and a combination of the two. The study also revealed that the challenges for paraphrasing are reading, lexical and syntactic problems

Cesme(2022) investigated the influence of performance and strategies of EFL graduate students in a Turkish university on their language proficiency, and language background. Data was taken from students’ text. The data was analsyed qualitatively using a taxanomy of paraphrase types. Findings revealed graduate students had difficulties in using paraphrasing skills. They often depended on strategies such as synonym substitution, and also copying strings of words.

Liao & Tseng (2010) investigated skilled and less skilled EFF writers’ performance and perceptions on paraphrasing and inappropriate text borrowing. The participants were 95 postgraduates and undergraduates in Taiwan. They were asked to complete a paraphrasing task. They were also asked to respond to a questionnaire. Findings showed a mismatch between participants’ behaviour and perceptions. The participants reported they did not commit plagiarism and claimed they were aware of the need to paraphrase. Nevertheless, upon analysis of their work, it was found they did plagarised. The findings revealed a mismatch between the participants’ behaviors and perceptions. The participants tended to deny having committed plagiarism and claimed they were aware of the importance of paraphrasing.  Their reasons were (a) they have not explicitly learnt paraphrasing skills. They said they were unsuccessful when it comes to transferring paraphrasing knowledge. One possible reason was that they had less sufficient metacognitive and strategies. The possible reasons for this could include the undergraduates’ less sufficient metacognitive knowledge and strategies.

To sum up, among some suggested paraphrasing strategies include vocabulary and academic writing skills that include technical aspects of writing. In addition to that, paraphrasing strategies can be improved if writers have good metacognitive strategies.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

Figure 3 below depicts the conceptual framework of the study. This study investigates how academic writers use different types of paraphrasing strategy. This study is rooted from the paraphrasing strategies by Injai ( 2015) & Schuemann,et.al. (2006) and the strategies are (a) syntactic paraphrase, (b) organization paraphrase, and (c) semantic paraphrase. In syntactic paraphrase, the writer transforms the source text using different syntax without changing the meaning of the source text. In organization paraphrase, writers organize ideas from the source text into a more coherent structure. In semantic paraphrase, converting a sentence or phrase that carries the same meaning as the source text. Organization paraphrase is a way to organize ideas from the source text into groupings. This helps readers see patterns and themes. Do academic writers choose only one strategy when they write or do they use a combination of few types? How are the different types of strategy related? This study thus explores the relationship between all the three types of paraphrasing strategies.

Figure 3- Conceptual Framework of the Study

Relationship between all Strategies in Paraphrasing

METHODOLOGY

This quantitative study is done to investigate learners use of paraphrasing strategies in academic writing. A purposive sample of 30 participants who attended an academic writing course and were taught the three types of paraphrasing strategies mentioned. responded to the survey. Data is collected online via google form. The instrument used is a 5 Likert-scale survey. The scales (table 1) used are never, rarely, sometimes, very often and always.

Table 1- Likert Scale

The instrument used is a 5 Likert-scale survey and is rooted from Injai ( 2015) & Schuemann,et.al. (2006) to reveal the variables in table 1 below. The survey has 4 sections. Section A has items on demographic profile. Section B has 9 items on syntactic paraphrase. Section C has 4 items on semantic paraphrase and section D has 14 items on organization paraphrase.

Table 2- Distribution of Items in the Survey

Table 2 also shows the reliability of the survey. The analysis shows a Cronbach alpha of .920 for syntactic paraphrase, .870 for semantic paraphrase and .966 for organization paraphrase. The overall external reliability for all 27 items is .973; thus, revealing a good reliability of the instrument chosen/used. Further descriptive analysis using SPSS is done to present findings to answer the research questions for this study.

FINDINGS

Findings for Demographic Profile

Table 3- Percentage for Q1-Gender

Table 3 presents data for gender. There are equal number of male and female participants (50%)

Table 4- Percentage for Q2-Sef- Rate English Proficiency

Table 4 presents the percentage for self-rate English proficiency of the participants. 7% reported they were weak. Next, 13% reported they had average English proficiency while 80 % reported they had good English proficiency.

Findings for Syntactic Paraphrasing

This section present data to answer research question 1- How do learners use syntactic paraphrase in academic writing?

Table 5- Mean for Syntactic Paraphrasing -using varied sentence patterns

Table 5 presents the mean for syntactic paraphrase. The highest mean is 3.6 (sd=.77385) for the item on “use linkers”. This is flowed by item on “change the sentence pattern without changing the meaning” (mean=3.5; sd=.68145). The lowest mean is 3.1 (sd=.89955) for the item on “change from positive to negative statements”.

Findings for Semantic Paraphrasing

This section present data to answer research question 2- How do learners use semantic paraphrase in academic writing? In the context of this study, semantic paraphrase is done by using synonym,

Table 6- Mean for (i) Semantic Paraphrasing-Using synonym

Table 6 above shows the mean for semantic paraphrase, particularly using synonym. The highest mean is 3.6 (sd=.81368) for the item “replace words with words of similar meaning”. Next the item “change the word order in sentences” has a mean of 3.5 (sd=.81931). The lowest mean is 3.3 (sd-.92229) for the item “change numbers to percentages and vice versa”.

Findings for Organizing Paraphrasing

This section present data to answer research question 3- How do learners use organization paraphrase in academic writing? In the context of this study, organization paraphrasing includes strategies such as (i) retelling method, (ii) chunking method and (iii) using varied sentence patterns.

Table 6- Mean for (i) Retelling method

Table 6 above shows the mean for retelling method. The highest mean is 3.7 (sd-.88409) for the item “read the whole section and try to understand”. This is followed by the mean of 3.6 (sd=.81720) for the item “refer to my notes and retell the content using my own words”. The lowest mean is 3.3 (sd=.78492) for the item “put away the original text when I am retelling”.

Table 7- Mean for (ii) Chunking method

Table 7 presents mean for chunking method. The highest mean is 3.8 (sd-.81720) for the item “read the original passage thoroughly”. This is followed by the mean of 3.5 (sd=.86103) for the item “use keywords and main ideas as “chunks”. Finally, the lowest mean is 3.4 is shared by three items and they are “divide the passage into chunks by underlining the main ideas”, “identify words that I can “chunk” first”, and “find chunking easy to do”. find chunking easy to do.

Table 8- Mean for (iii) Using varied sentence patterns

Table 8 shows the mean for “using varied sentences”. The highest mean is 3.7 (sd=.82001) for the item “use linkers such as although, therefore, because, etc)”. This is followed by the mean of 3.6 (sd-.77385) for the item “change the sentence patterns without changing its meaning”. The lowest mean is 3.4 (sd=.88992) for the item “change adjective to adverbs OR adverbs to adjectives”.

Findings for Relationship between all types of Paraphrasing

This section present data to answer research question 4- Is there a relationship between all types of paraphrases in academic writing? To determine if there is a significant association in the mean scores between metacognitive, effort regulation, cognitive, social and affective strategies data is anlaysed using SPSS for correlations. Results are presented separately in table 9,10 and 11 below.

Table 9- Correlation between Syntactic and Semantic Paraphrase Correlations

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 9 shows there is an association between syntactic and semantic paraphrase. Correlation analysis shows that there is a high significant association between syntactic and semantic paraphrase (r=.744**) and (p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong positive relationship between syntactic and semantic paraphrase.

Table 10- Correlation between Semantic and Organization Paraphrase Correlations

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 10 shows there is an association between semantic and organization paraphrase. Correlation analysis shows that there is a high significant association between semantic and organization paraphrase (r=.927**) and (p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong positive relationship between semantic and organization paraphrase.

Table 11- Correlation between Organization and Syntactic Paraphrase Correlations

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 11 shows there is an association organization and syntactic paraphrase. Correlation analysis shows that there is a high significant association between organization and syntactic paraphrase (r=..743**) and (p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong positive relationship between organization and syntactic paraphrase.

CONCLUSION

Summary of findings and discussions

Syatactic Paraphrasing

This study revealed interesting writers’ perception on the use of paraphrasing strategies. Respondents reported some strategies were used more often than others. When it comes to syntactic paraphrasing, they used linkers, they changed the sentence patterns without changing the meaning. This finding is accordance with the study by Ovilla,et.al, (2022) and also Azis,et.al.(2019) found that syntactic paraphrasing is considered difficult because writers found that changing sentence structure requires more than writing and reading skills combined.

Semantic Paraphrasing

Next, the findings for semantic paraphrasing revealed that the most often used strategies are using synonym. replacing words with words of similar meaning and even changing the word order in sentences. Similarly the studies by Azis,et.al.(2019)  and  Sulistyaningrum (2021) fund writers found semantic paraphrasing a preferred choice among academic writers.

Organization Paraphrasing

Another type of paraphrasing strategy is organization. This involves retelling, chunking and using varied sentences. Respondents reported high use of strategies such as reading the whole section and trying to understand the source text, referring to their notes and retelling the content using my own words. Interestingly, many agreed they would not put away the original (source) text when they were retelling. This is not a good strategy as doing so (not putting away the original text) can lure the writers to copy parts of the original text which may lead to plagiarism.

Next, chunking is reported to be used often. Writers claimed they   read the original passage thoroughly, use keywords and main ideas as “chunks”. The study by Cesme (2020) also reported similar preference of strategy which is chunking by copying ideas. The findings also reported that writers used varied sentences such as linkers like although, therefore, because, etc. They also reported to change the sentence patterns without changing its meaning. The study by  Na & Mai (2017) also reported similar pattern of use of the sentence variety strategy by academic writers. Finally, this study showed there is a strong positive relationship between syntactic and semantic paraphrase.  There is also a strong positive relationship between semantic and organization paraphrase.

Finally, there is also a strong positive relationship between organization and syntactic paraphrase. The study by Tran & Nguyen(2022) initiated that using paraphrasing strategies influence writers positively. This could mean that writers who depended on more than one type of paraphrasing strategies can increase their chance of having positive perception of academic writing which in the long run may improve their writing ability.

To sum up, this study has reported that the use of paraphrasing strategies is related to one another. Not only are the writers equipped with the knowledge of different types of paraphrasing strategies, they need to the different types even when writing one essay task. This study reported that the use of syntactic, semantic and organization paraphrasing are related to one another.  The knowledge of these strategies can help writers become better academic writers.

Pedagogical Implications and suggestions for future research

There are many more paraphrasing strategies that can/should be taught to academic writers. I would suggest that writing teachers spend more time to teach as many paraphrasing strategies before any real academic skills are introduced. Writers often resort to plagiarism when they (a) do not understand the source text, and (b) do not use paraphrasing strategies properly. I would suggest future research conduct qualitative and /or quantitative study to dwell into why academic writers are not using a variety of paraphrasing strategies. Are the strategies difficult to use or is it easier to resort to copying chunks?

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researcher would like to thank the respondents for being part of the study.

REFERENCES

1. Azis,W.A., Suryant,Y., & Sutisma,E. (2019) Students’ Difficulties to Write Paraphrasing Text and Summarizing Text. Pedagogia, 11(1), 84-87. https://journal.unpak.ac.id/index.php/pedagogia/article/viewFile/7196/3760
2. Bereiter,C., & Scardamalia,M. (1987) The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale NJ: L. Erlbaum
3. Cesme,H. (2022) Exploring Paraphrase Performances and Strategies of Graduate Student Writing. International Journal of Education, 11(1). 10-13. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1373384.pdf
4. Clarin,A.S., Serohijos,S.S., Sumaylo,L.L. & Baluyos,G.R., (2023) The Challenges in Paraphrasing among English Language Students. EduLine: Journal of Education and Learning Innovation, 3(4), 493-503. https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.eduline2052
5. Colein,E. and Gardent,C. (2018) Generating Syntactic Paraphrases. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 937–943, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/D18-1113.pdf
6. Hayuningrum,H. & Yulia,M.F. (2012) Students Problems in Writing Paraphrases in Research Paper Writing Class, 15(1), 133-147.
7. Injai,R. (2015) An Analysis of Paraphrasing Strategies employed by Thai EFL Students : Case Study of Burapha University. Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Burapha University. https://digital_collect.lib.buu.ac.th/dcms/files/54910112.pdf
8. Jackson,S.L. (2015) Research methods and Statistics-A Critical Thinking Approach (5^tH Edition) Boston, USA:: Cengage Learning.
9. Liao M-T., & Tseng C-Y. (2010). Students’ behaviors and views of paraphrasing and inappropriate textual borrowing in an EFL academic setting. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 187-211.
10. Mariani,M., Rahayu,P.S., Nor,H. (2021) Paraphrasing Strategies in Higher Education. Conference: 1^st International Conference on Education of Suryakancana.
11. Na, C.D., & Mai, N.X.N.C. (2017) Paraphrasing in Academic Writing: a Case Study of Vietnamese Learners of English. Language Education in Asia, 8(1), 9-25. https://leia.org/LEiA/LEiA%20VOLUMES/Download/LEiA_V8_I1_2017/LEiA_V8I1A02_Na_Mai.pdf
12. Ovilla,R., Addinna,A., & Oktoviandry,R. (2022) Students’ Paraphrasing ability in Academic Writing: Techniques and Challenges. Komposisi: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa, Sastrta dan Seni. 23(2), 141-151.  http://dx.doi.org/10.24036/komposisi.v23i2.119456
13. Rahmat,N.H. (2020) Knowledge Transforming in Writing: An Analysis of Read-to-Write Process. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(4), 1-17. 10.5281/zenodo.3883649
14. Rahmat, N. H., Aripin, N. ., Lin, N. M. ., Whanchit, W. ., & Khairuddin, Z. . (2020). Exploring the Connection between Critical Thinking Skills and Academic Writing. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 10(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1.2020.102.118.128
15. Regala-Flores,E, & Lopez,M. (2019) Self-Reported Summarizing and Paraphrasing Difficulties in L2 Writing contexts :Some Pedagogical Interventions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 286-296. https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/IJAL/article/view/20219
16. Schuemann, C., Bryd, P., & Reid, J. (2006). College writing 4. Boston: Heinle/ELT, Cengage Learning.
17. Shi,L., Fazel,I., & Kowkabi,N. (2018) Paraphrasing to transform knowledge in advanced graduate students writing. English for Specific Purposes, 51 (July 2018), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.001
18. Sulistyaningrum,S.D.(2021) Utilizing Online Paraphrasing Tools to Overcome Students’ Paraphrasing Difficulties in Literature Reviews. Journal of English Language Studies. 6(2), 229-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.30870/jels.v6i2.11582
19. Tran, T. T. T., & Nguyen, H. B. (2022). The effects of paraphrasing on EFL Students’ academic writing. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 18(1), 976-987. Doi: 10.52462/jlls.233